|
Post by Curtis on Jul 6, 2005 7:31:56 GMT -8
I think the Oaky and the Coq have the least amount of accidents the Oaky had none recorded till the June 30th crash
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jul 6, 2005 8:35:44 GMT -8
I they've all had accidents now, The Oaky has only had one, and that was last week when she crashed into Horseshoe Bay.
|
|
|
Post by Engineer on Jul 6, 2005 12:50:35 GMT -8
well 35 million or so on a refit and maybe 4 percent goes to the engine room, the rest goes to pretty seats and TV's What do you think was going to happen , and it will again.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Jul 6, 2005 20:25:21 GMT -8
Yeah that is what I have thought before! They put so much into redoing the passenger facilities that how much is actually done on the engines and mechanical?? TV's they can get rid of, we dont need TV's on ferries! There only 90 min to 2 hours so if you cant go that long without TV, you got a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 7, 2005 6:57:37 GMT -8
One of my friends went on her 2 days before she crashed and he said that there was one tv on it, and that was in the childrens play area, and all it was playing was blues clues over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 7, 2005 7:04:57 GMT -8
Oh and by the way, she is sitting in berth one now at Departure Bay. I wonder how her sea trials went, must of been good because, let's hope the RBI isn't lying because she is scheduled to come back into service tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jul 7, 2005 7:36:00 GMT -8
hmm... I think I'll go check the BCF website for any news releases, or service notices regarding the Oaky.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jul 7, 2005 8:00:30 GMT -8
She has been on the RBI all week, they replace her with the Coq in the morning.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Jul 7, 2005 13:01:36 GMT -8
Yeah I flew over the Oaky at Departure Bay! I got some ariel photos of her I will be posting later!
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 8, 2005 8:17:32 GMT -8
I don't want to be negative towards the Queen of Oak Bay, but was in Lloyd's on Wednesday and talked to a couple members of the Insurance underwriters - and they want heads. Not so much the captain - so far but other people up the line and down the line.
1. Very lucky as a day before a major national Holiday and no one was working on there boats - there could have been major fatalities.
2. No clear run off zones - to beach the vessel - why?
3. Engineering - design. After a major re-fit
It sounds from the talking here on the floor - that Lloyd's will want some major changes to a number of things. Run off zones are top of the list - due to the age of the fleet. A general review of engineering in the Ship yards is another issue (Design) They are not talking about workmanship - or seamanship or even the Captain, but Management in general in key areas.
Lets see what comes out....
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 8, 2005 8:37:39 GMT -8
"run off zone"
- Is this like a run-away-lane for trucks on a mountain highway? ie. a safe emergency route that a vessel can steer into if it has problems, and then safely slow down & stop?
If so, then this will be a problem as Horseshoe Bay, as there obviously isn't any room for this.....further confirmation that HSB isn't a suitable site for a major ferry terminal.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 8, 2005 8:42:41 GMT -8
Yeah the Marina was the best place to beach because everywhere else in that area is rock face cliffs. I guess they shouldn't really of bothered to rebuild the docks now so it could be a run off in case it ever happens again (not because I think Oak Bay will crash like that ever again hopefully, but the same could happen to any of the other ferries) and the cost could be way less and there wouldn't have to be as much of a worry to hit the smaller boats if it was done right. It sure is a good thing that it happened to be Low tide last week when it happened because if it happened at high tide, it would of gone further into the marina and higher up on to the shore and then the tide would of dropped and she probably could of tipped over. I just can't imagine what it would be like to witness one of those ferries tipping over like that, especially when it's full of cars.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 8, 2005 8:44:05 GMT -8
Also too, there was talk last week to have another terminal for the Nanaimo traffic to go to in Vancouver and then just have the Langdale ferry and the Bowen ferry go to Horseshoe Bay. But that wouldn't happen for like a decade or more probably.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 8, 2005 8:49:46 GMT -8
You are correct. Now for the interesting bit's. On www.sedar.com BC Ferries had to list all the terminals - as these were used as a form of security for the loan ($450m). They show what is termed "district lots" You see the main terminal - then on either side these number district lot's - then you see the name of the company that BCFS has leased these lot's to. (Extra income?) In the "old" days the run off zones - where set up for this reason - if a gear box failed or a fire on board then the Capitan beaches the vessel near to the terminal so the emergency services know where it is and can get to it quickly. Plus added to this in the old days you got a lot of Prop wash. They stopped people swimming near the terminals. So over the years - BC Ferries or the government of the day - wanted more income and sold or leased these water front slots. My thinking - is that Lloyd's will want these "free" water lots returned - so there is a run off zone. If you think the worse - thank god it didn't happen - but there could easily have been people working or sleeping on there boats - then where would we be???
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 8, 2005 8:55:51 GMT -8
I want to get some pictures of Ferry Terminals here and show you what we use in Europe. They have water fill ram's - pistons that can stop a "run away" ferry. The same thing they use for trains.
These ram's also act to fit in a vessel - into a slot - dock / terminal. They get filled up by the local water - and let it out when hit.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 8, 2005 8:56:44 GMT -8
There was one guy on TV who claimed he was working on a boat in that marina, I think he was the only one, and he didn't notice the ferry coming till he looked back and the horn was blowing and it was heading straight for him and then he obviously ran for his life off the dock. But imagine if everyone was in their boats there and then the crowd of people running for their lives off of that dock. Would of been quite the tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 8, 2005 9:03:41 GMT -8
A side note - the PR Spin put out by BC Ferries - and picked up here in the UK - London was interesting.
The Union rep person was looking and sounding very negative - not helpful at all towards her members. She never should have come out and said it was clutch or gearbox problem and the ship / design is known for this sort of problem. What a way to sell the service to the markets and to tourist who might want to come to the Island or sail on a BC Ferry. What was she trying to do?? Internationally she came over very bad.
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Jul 8, 2005 9:09:38 GMT -8
it like my dad says.....Any publicity is good publicity.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jul 8, 2005 9:43:20 GMT -8
That's a good belief to have, and I certainly agree with your father.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 8, 2005 11:42:05 GMT -8
I tend to agree with that sort of statement - but it sure made the Union person look a bloody fool.
I guess the negative side - if there is one - that BC Ferries has Old vessel - well we knew that - now the World also knows - and via the Union person - the world also knows that they don't appear to be that good or reliable.
Also not a good "shop window" for BC Ship yards. I wonder who is paying for the repairs to the Queen ? WMG ? or Insurance?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 8, 2005 13:25:17 GMT -8
I think it is time to get a new forum started on this topic cause this has grown to 11 pages
|
|
|
Post by BrianWilliams on Jul 10, 2005 19:05:58 GMT -8
Run-off zones:
It would be nice to have clear beach at HB in event of an emergency like this. In fact, Sewell's was the only possible run-off zone. 500 people are grateful that it was used.
Those who have checked the value of West Vancouver waterfront lately know that creating a vacant beach in HB would cost about as much as 2 new Spirits.
European buffers:
Very effective, but they rely on getting a runaway boat into the guides. This may work at Swartz Bay, Langdale and DP. HB is too tight. Tsawwassen is in least danger, because everything off the terminal is gentle shoals.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 11, 2005 6:55:57 GMT -8
Brian,
I think that the legal department of BCFS - will have to review what type of deal was done on the "District Lots" and the type of license they granted to the companies. It only covers the water section. Not shore - foreshore. From the "High Tide" marker. So people can still have there expensive houses there - but be aware.
On the documents posted - it mentions "granting of a license" what it doesn't state is the length of time or the amount of money that changes hand ect for the usage of the District Lot. So I guess the people who own the marina - would want some sort of money to cover there cost and lost of income ect..
I have to be back at Lloyd's on Wednesday for a short meeting so will ask the two syndicate's who hold most of the Insurance for BCFS (Hull & Machinery and personal) what there views maybe. Over the weekend someone told me they will go for the Run off zones or adjustments to the terminals - to install ram's - as per what we have in Europe. I think the run off zones would be the cheaper option.
|
|
|
Post by Engineer on Jul 11, 2005 7:42:57 GMT -8
run off zones another office worker trying run ships?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jul 11, 2005 7:50:21 GMT -8
I guess our Grandfathers were correct back in the 1920' & 30's about having these run off zones.
|
|